News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...er-fast-magnetic-train-floats-above-the-track

Super-fast magnetic train floats above the track
San Grewal Staff Reporter
Published On Fri Oct 09 2009

Toronto's Maglev

Long before France's groundbreaking TGV, with speeds up to 560 km/h, and maglev projects boasting top speeds close to 600 km/h throughout the U.S., Japan, Germany and China, a 60 km/h maglev train was being built in Toronto.

It was in 1972 and called the Go-Urban magnetic levitation system. The four-kilometre test track around the CNE would serve as the model for urban transit in Toronto, the rest of the province and the entire world.

"That's where I cut my teeth on maglev," says Jim Parker, one of the project's lead engineers for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in the early 1970s.

Parker now has his own firm, Kingston-based Parker and Associates, a Delcan company.

The province's plan in the 1970s was to build a 90-kilometre network of the unmanned trains throughout Toronto at a cost of $756 million. There was heavy opposition from advocates of a modern streetcar system.

William Bidell, an assistant deputy minister, told the Star in 1974, after the CNE test project was half-finished: "I don't care what anybody says – for the kind of environmentally clean and virtually noiseless rapid transit system we want in Metro, there's just no way streetcars can do the job."

The following year, the project was scrapped due to mounting criticism.



MAIN ARTICLE:

Phyllis Wilkins looks forward to the day when residents of her city will be able to levitate 64 kilometres to Washington, D.C.

Wilkins is executive director of Maglev (Magnetic Levitation) Maryland, part of the City of Baltimore's Development Corp.

And she's a busy woman.

In 2006, Baltimore city council voted to build a 64-km long maglev high-speed train line, for travel at 420 km/h between the city centre and downtown Washington, with one stop in between at Baltimore Washington International Airport.

The project was included in the city's 10-year master plan and with the approval of Washington's mayor is now set to begin once federal infrastructure funding is secured to cover part of the $5.83 billion (U.S.) budget.

"The drive times in the best of traffic from downtown Baltimore to downtown D.C. is 45 minutes," Wilkins says.

"In bad traffic it's an hour and a half, easy. With maglev it will be 18 minutes."

Wilkins, who hopes construction will begin in 2013 with completion by 2017, says the broader plan is to link up maglev lines throughout the U.S. Northeast, to New York and Boston, and south to Charlotte and Atlanta.

It would eliminate highly inefficient and heavily polluting short-haul air travel (which accounts for more than a third of all flights in the U.S. northeast), while in some cases cutting overall trip times in half.

Right now, the only passenger-carrying maglev train in the world is in Shanghai. That 31-km line, which carries people at 431 km/h, is now being extended beyond the city south to Hangzhou, and will cut what's typically a two-hour car trip down to 12 minutes.

In Canada, maglev lines, which are best used in high-density corridors up to 1,000 kilometres in length, have long been talked about, particularly for the Windsor to Montreal corridor.

There was even a prototype line being built in Toronto during the 1970s (see sidebar).

But Jim Parker, who was involved in the prototype project and is an advocate of high-speed rail, doesn't think the economics of a maglev system connecting southern Ontario and Quebec make sense.

"We were always challenged by how are we going to cope with freezing rain and snow. You could keep the system running with blowers right on the cars. But we just don't have the population density you need to make it a revenue-neutral system.

"But if there was, say, a private partnership in Canada, maglev or high-speed rail would be much more efficient with much lower energy use per passenger than cars or planes, there's no question about it."
 
From reading this article it seems that Canada is in the same boat as the USA.

Bombardier is on the right track While its aerospace division faces turbulence, company's rail transport business is booming

Bombardier Inc., already a global giant in transportation, is poised to become entrenched as the dominant rail-transport firm of the 21st century

Bombardier in September signed a $4 billion (U.S.) deal to provide 80 high-speed trains such as the one pictured above to China. And the Canadian firm expects a lot more China business.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/744697--olive-bombardier-is-on-the-right-track
 
It is interesting that the US plans for high speed rail include four corridors with a strong "Canadian connection" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States )

1. Northern New England Corridor (ending at Montreal)
2. Pacific Northwest Corridor (ending at Vancouver)
3. Empire Corridor (ending at Buffalo)and
4. Chicago Area Hub (Chicago to Detroit)

If the Empire Corridor gets built it should certainly encourage us to improve the Buffalo to Toronto line - which is seldom mentioned when the "Quebec City to Windsor" corridor is discussed.
 
The real issue for speed, even today, across the border is the border controls. It might be time to start building US preclearance facilities at major stations (Toronto, maybe Hamilton and London).

Not sure if the US would allow this, but it would speed things up to make the trains U.S. territory and move the borders to the Canadian stations (since most routes will spend more time in the states). International trains would just be restricted to serving major stations with the point of entry facilities.
 
They do pre-clearance in Vancouver for Seattle bound trains, so I see no reason why Toronto, Montreal, etc. couldn't have pre-clearance facilities as well. I could pre-clearance facilities at Montreal, Toronto, Niagara Falls (or Fort Erie, depending on routing) and Windsor.

Right now for Seattle to Vancouver, Canadian customs is still handled on train. Not sure if we can get CBSA to put custom and immigration facilities in Montreal and Toronto instead of handling it at the border.

Greg
 
If we are going to have pre-clearance in places like Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton or London, I see no point in allowing boarding in places like Niagara Falls or Windsor unless there are pre-clearance facilites there as well. People could just cross the border with a local shuttle (either rail or bus) and make the connection in Niagara Falls USA or Detroit. Certainly people would be able to get off the train at Windsor or Niagara. Hopefully if we can get trains running at an hourly frequency, those who still need claerance and the border can diembark, get clearance, and reboard without holding up the train at the border.

And if the United states is so worried about security of the trains, just let them monitor cameras at stops along the corridor, and cameras on the actual trains. It's their money, and train stations are public places, I see no real privacy or sovereigty issues, as long as the RCMP has the final say.
 
In Europe, at least when I traveled, they did the passport checks on board the train, w/o ever stopping (or delaying boarding).

So when I was enroute from Amsterdam to Cologne (Germany) the guards boarded while still in Holland.....and has us all cleared before we ever got to Germany.

Don't understand why we can't do it that way.
 
Indeed, the European way is better and has a proven model to follow. Alas, something tells me they will want to replicate the US air model perhaps even under the direction of the TSA.
 
Indeed, the European way is better and has a proven model to follow. Alas, something tells me they will want to replicate the US air model perhaps even under the direction of the TSA.

The Europeans have a Customs Union called the Schengen Agreement that basically get rid of the need for any border controls on the continent. To do something similar with the USA would either require Canada to harmonize all trade rules with the USA (ie, lose sovereignty) or for the USA to give up to a transnational body. It is very unlikely either will ever happen.
 
It is interesting that the US plans for high speed rail include four corridors with a strong "Canadian connection" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States )

1. Northern New England Corridor (ending at Montreal)
2. Pacific Northwest Corridor (ending at Vancouver)
3. Empire Corridor (ending at Buffalo)and
4. Chicago Area Hub (Chicago to Detroit)

If the Empire Corridor gets built it should certainly encourage us to improve the Buffalo to Toronto line - which is seldom mentioned when the "Quebec City to Windsor" corridor is discussed.

Its true about the Canadian connection but then again it does not include Toronto... Montreal and Vancouver being close to the United States dont give a rats ass if our Canadian government ever builds a high speed line....Lets us in Toronto forget about this Quebec City-Windsor high speed train corridor that has been in the works for over 30 years and just demand and build a high speed line to the two American Neighbouring cities that will have a future high speed rail network. Holy crap, Canada runs the train system almost like a 3rd world country.
 
The Europeans have a Customs Union called the Schengen Agreement that basically get rid of the need for any border controls on the continent. To do something similar with the USA would either require Canada to harmonize all trade rules with the USA (ie, lose sovereignty) or for the USA to give up to a transnational body. It is very unlikely either will ever happen.
I doubt that even harmonizing all trade rules would allow for a Schengen-like treaty. I think the only way to have that little hassle with the US would be to join the US.

Automation Gallery said:
Its true about the Canadian connection but then again it does not include Toronto... Montreal and Vancouver being close to the United States dont give a rats ass if our Canadian government ever builds a high speed line....Lets us in Toronto forget about this Quebec City-Windsor high speed train corridor that has been in the works for over 30 years and just demand and build a high speed line to the two American Neighbouring cities that will have a future high speed rail network. Holy crap, Canada runs the train system almost like a 3rd world country.
Actually, there are a buch of 3rd world countries that have much better rail systems than we do :rolleyes:
 
The Europeans have a Customs Union called the Schengen Agreement that basically get rid of the need for any border controls on the continent. To do something similar with the USA would either require Canada to harmonize all trade rules with the USA (ie, lose sovereignty) or for the USA to give up to a transnational body. It is very unlikely either will ever happen.

Lose sovereignty? Are any European countries less sovereign from signing Schengen? I'd venture to say no.

All this talk of Canada losing sovereignty to sign a Schengen-like agreement is a bunch of bull and fuelled by petty anti-Americanism.

I doubt that even harmonizing all trade rules would allow for a Schengen-like treaty. I think the only way to have that little hassle with the US would be to join the US.

Actually, there are a buch of 3rd world countries that have much better rail systems than we do :rolleyes:

What does this even have to do with trade? We already have NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement. This is more about customs, not trade.

You could argue that immigration policies may be affected, but I don't think Obama would ever try to force Canada to change its immigration policies to sign a Schengen-like Agreement.

All the fear-mongering about a common border is simply, inexplicably, ridiculous.
 
What does this even have to do with trade? We already have NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement. This is more about customs, not trade.

You could argue that immigration policies may be affected, but I don't think Obama would ever try to force Canada to change its immigration policies to sign a Schengen-like Agreement.

All the fear-mongering about a common border is simply, inexplicably, ridiculous.
Yes, in fact I did mean customs, not trade.
And it would be an inconvenience. Either the US would have to tighten up gun laws, or we'd have to go very lax on them. Either the US would have to loosen immigration, or we'd have to tighten up on immigration all across the country. And I wonder which country it is that'll be doing the changing.
 
Lose sovereignty? Are any European countries less sovereign from signing Schengen? I'd venture to say no.

All this talk of Canada losing sovereignty to sign a Schengen-like agreement is a bunch of bull and fuelled by petty anti-Americanism.



What does this even have to do with trade? We already have NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement. This is more about customs, not trade.

You could argue that immigration policies may be affected, but I don't think Obama would ever try to force Canada to change its immigration policies to sign a Schengen-like Agreement.

All the fear-mongering about a common border is simply, inexplicably, ridiculous.

It is about trade just as much as customs, as Canada and US do not have common external trade barriers. To do a Schengen you have to have common trade barriers - you don't need common immigration policies (Europe doesn't).

Of course, none of the above would ever be approved in the American Senate in a way that Canada would accept.

Does not mean there are not better ways to facilitate customs on trains moving between the USA and Canada, but with Canada insisting on any level of service above grandfathered in service be provided on solely a fee for service basis (see the Vancouver-Seattle train trying to get a second run daily as evidence)
 
It is about trade just as much as customs, as Canada and US do not have common external trade barriers. To do a Schengen you have to have common trade barriers - you don't need common immigration policies (Europe doesn't).

Of course, none of the above would ever be approved in the American Senate in a way that Canada would accept.

Does not mean there are not better ways to facilitate customs on trains moving between the USA and Canada, but with Canada insisting on any level of service above grandfathered in service be provided on solely a fee for service basis (see the Vancouver-Seattle train trying to get a second run daily as evidence)

I don't see any problem with Canada and the US harmonizing trade barriers. Does anyone really care about that?
 

Back
Top